Reviewer Guideline

TRANSPARENCY PRINCIPLE

The researches that have completed the preliminary evaluation of the Editor-in-Chief are sent to three referees from the field.
All correspondence between the Journal of TechTourism Research author and editorship; Editor-in-Chief and referee evaluation processes are transparent.
The names of the authors are never mentioned in the research sent to the referees, nor are the names of the referees in the reports sent to the authors.
If the referee thinks that there are ethical issues, data integrity and academic conflict issues related to the research, he/she must definitely share/share these issues with the Editor.
In addition to a holistic and consistent evaluation process, in order to provide a better academic contribution to the author, the Editor may ask the referees to make suggestions for each other's reports. In this case, the names of the referees are not shared with each other.

What Should the Referee Do?

The referee should first check the file sent to him/her and make sure that the file is opened without any problems.
The referee should inform the editor within one (1) week whether he/she can evaluate the research or not, considering the evaluation period for the research and the suitability of the subject of the research for him/her.
If the referee thinks that he/she cannot act fairly due to a conflict of interest (author, institution, financier, etc.), he/she should inform the editor that he/she cannot evaluate the study.
If the referee received support from someone else while evaluating the research, he/she is requested to inform the Editor of the name of this person. As a journal, we believe that it would be ethical to include the name of this person as a referee.

PUBLICATION POLICY AND ETHICAL ISSUES

The author may request that certain individuals not be referees due to conflict of interest.
Since it is not possible for the Editor to know all the factors mentioned, referees are expected to inform the Editor of any situations that will prevent them from making a fair evaluation.
No matter how much effort the Editor puts into a research, he/she may not notice any violations of publication policy or ethical problems. It is very important for expert referees to warn the Editor when they encounter such situations.

FEEDBACK TO REFEREES

The final version of a research that has been decided to be published is sent only to the referee who wants to see the research again.
After a research is published, the referee may see that his/her own views are not fully reflected in the research. It is possible that other referees have different views and that the Editor has taken these views into consideration. In this case, the views of the other referees may be sent to the referee who evaluated the research upon his/her request.
The Editor follows one of the following methods according to the referees' suggestions:
He/she may accept the research for publication with a request for minor or major corrections,
He/she may ask the author/authors to edit the resarch in accordance with the referee's views and initiate a new evaluation process,
He/she may reject the research.
The referees may state a definitive opinion in the reports they prepare regarding the publication or non-publication of the research. However, the Editor will make a decision based on the opposing views of the referees who evaluated the research. In this regard, the Editor looks at the strength of the arguments of the referees or authors, not the number of referees who accept or reject the research. The editor considers reports that contain strong, well-reasoned propositions rather than reports whose evaluation questions are answered with a yes or no answer.

Reviewer Selection

Many factors play a role in the selection of the reviewers. Factors such as experience, suitability of the field of study are the most determining factors in the selection of the reviewer.

The author(s) may request not to send their work to some referees because of conflict of interest.

The reviewer list is periodically evaluated by the editorial within each issue and is updated and shared on the generic page.

Upon their request, reviewer documents are sent to our reviewers, following the issue of the publication of the work they review.

Report Writing

Reviewer evaluations report are expected to focus especially on these following questions;

Does the study make an original contribution to the knowledge in the field?

Is the study scientifically up to date?
Reviewer reviews are expected to be critical and unbiased.

Reviewers are expected to make a text-based assessment only, and to avoid statements about the author's / authors' inadequacies.

In addition to the evaluation criteria, referees are expected to detail their negative opinions and state their justifications in the space next to the evaluation form.

In particular, the reviewer who gives a negative opinion should present the weaknesses of the study and reasons for refusal to the author with his evaluations.

The editor intervenes in the spelling mistakes in the reviewer reports, the statements that deem the author/authors inadequate, the expressions that contain vulgar or insulting or insulting, and information errors.

Assessment Process

Reviewers are given 30 days to assess a study.

If the referee is unable to evaluate the work within the given period, s/he may request additional time from the Editor or inform the Editor that s/he cannot assess the study due to time constraints. Thus, the author's time loss can be prevented and sufficient time is provided for the editor to appoint a new reviewer.